Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 24-Apr-00, 00:29 (CDT), John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
> > The question then becomes one of which license is violated. The violated
> > license is logically the more restrictive in that particular circumstance
> > and the logical assumption may be extended via generalization, after
> > suitable application of weasel words.
>
> You may think that's logical, but you're wrong. Microsoft can't include
> GPL'd code in NT because GPL won't allow binary only releases. The
> GPL would be violated. Are you going to thus claim the GPL is more
> restrictive that MS's shrinkwrap licenses?
That's why I said weasel words--when going from specific cases to general
cases, there are quite a few cracks that show through, you found one of
the bigger ones.
>
> > BTW, since the QPL is apparently not free enough to make it into
> > /usr/share/common-licenses, the URL is http://www.trolltech.com/qpl
>
> Try taking the chip off of your shoulder and looking up the definition
> of "common". Then try to count the number of packages with a GPL
> license vs. QPL.
Is that before or after KDE was found to be undistributable :) Actually,
the common-licenses is a little thin compared to the multitude of
packages, so I guess the crack about not free enough was a LITTLE out of
line...Point taken.
> Steve
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: